What do you think?
Rate this book
Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion
The 1925 Scopes Trial marked a watershed in our national relationship between science and religion and has had tremendous impact on our culture ever since, even inspiring the play and movie, both titled "Inherit the Wind." In addition to symbolizing the evolutionist versus creationist debate, the trial helped shape the development of both popular religion and religious freedom in America. Yet despite its influence on the 20th century, there are no modern histories of the trial and its aftermath. This book fills that void not only by skillfully narrating the trial's events, but also by framing it in a broader social context, showing how its influence has cut across religious, cultural, educational and political lines. With new material from both the prosecution and the defense, along with the author's astute historical and legal analysis, "Summer for the Gods" is destined to become a new classic about a pivotal milestone in American history.
336 pages, Paperback
First published June 26, 1997
About the author
Edward J. Larson
30 books166 followersEdward J. Larson is the author of many acclaimed works in American history, including the Pulitzer Prize–winning history of the Scopes Trial, Summer for the Gods. He is University Professor of History and Hugh and Hazel Darling Chair in Law at Pepperdine University, and lives with his family near Los Angeles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 214 reviews
April 26, 2016
It seemed a propitious time to read Edward Larson’s Summer for the Gods. This past February, Bill Nye made the (unfortunate, lose-lose) decision to debate young earth creationist Ken Ham at the Creationist Museum . Four months earlier, Texas – which has enormous sway in the textbook industry – once again began working on legislation to “teach the controversy,” a euphemistic way of saying “teach creationism” alongside evolution.
This is all well and good, because there is literally nothing else going on in the world that demands our attention.
The evolution controversy (manufactured and for-profit) is not a new phenomena. It has been brewing ever since Charles Darwin wrote his impenetrable classic, On the Origin of Species, which sits unread on my bookshelf, right next to Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.
One of the first– and undoubtedly most famous – salvos in this ongoing (and thoroughly ridiculous battle) was the 1925 case of State of Tennessee vs. John T. Scope, more familiarly known as the Scopes (or Scopes Monkey) Trial. Undoubtedly you’ve heard of the case. Perhaps, like me, you sometimes drink wine and watch Turner Classic Movies and saw part of Inherit the Wind before passing out one night.
Summer of the Gods is the brisk (266 pages of text), readable, Pulitzer Prize winning story of this seminal case. And if you’re like me, and your knowledge about this event is restricted to imbibing Yellow Tail chardonnay and watching Spencer Tracey spar with Frederic March, you will be surprised by what you learn.
Most surprisingly, perhaps, is that the Scopes Trial began as a publicity stunt. Whenever a controversial law is passed, opponents of that law will look for a test case to challenge the law’s constitutionality. Tennessee’s law, the Butler Act, forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools.
(The Butler Act made teaching evolution a jail-able offense, a fact that made even supporters of the law uncomfortable. Marinate on that, for a second. A law that would put teachers in jail for teaching a subject. In America. Jailed in America for teaching. It boggles the mind.)
The American Civil Liberties Union offered to provide the defense of anyone charged with violating the Butler Act. This would allow them to get the case before the State – and ultimately – United States Supreme Court, where they hoped it would be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment.
In Robinson’s Drugstore in Dayton, Tennessee, an entrepreneurial coal company manufacturer and several other conspirators – including the school superintendent – decided that a trial on the law would be great for tourism. With that in mind, and with all parties colluding, including the prosecutors and local judges, a teacher named John Scopes (with minimal local ties, for obvious reasons) was recruited to serve as the defendant. He was indicted, went before the judge, and was released without bond pending trial.
(It is unclear that Scopes ever actually violated the law. In later years he denied teaching evolution subsequent to the Butler Act. At his trial, the students called to testify against him – with Scopes’ blessing – were vague in the extreme. If Scopes ever taught them evolution, he didn't teach it very well).
The run-up to the trial promised everything the Dayton chamber of commerce could’ve hoped for. The prosecutors brought in William Jennings Bryan, a former secretary of state, presidential nominee, and ardent creationist. The defense countered with a controversial choice (even among other defense attorneys): Clarence Darrow, a latter day cross between Richard Dawkins and Barry Scheck.
The defense eventually settled on a strategy of arguing that evolution and the Bible were compatible. After the prosecution staged its case-in-chief, showing that Scopes taught evolution in violation of the law, Judge John Raulston suddenly tired of the spectacle. He ruled that the defense’s proposed experts were irrelevant to the narrow question of whether or not Scopes taught evolution.
To preserve a record for appeal, the defense made an offer of proof outside the presence of the jury. Darrow also shocked everyone by calling Bryan to the stand (and Bryan shocked everyone by taking the stand). The Darrow-Bryan examination is the most famous aspect of the Scopes trial, the part you’ve heard of even if you don’t know anything else about the case. Interestingly, Judge Raulston eventually determined Bryan’s testimony irrelevant and had it expunged from the record.
With its strategy thwarted, the defense conceded Scope’s conviction. Scopes was fined $100 and the defense appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The high court upheld the conviction, but overturned the sentence (the fine) on a technicality. Then, in an extremely unusual bit of dicta, they recommended that the prosecution not retry the case. The purpose of this suggestion was to keep the defense from appealing to the United States Supreme Court.
Larson tracks these many twists and turns in clear and transparent prose. He is a law professor, but writes for laypeople. He is good at explaining the different legal strategies and nuances of a fairly convoluted proceeding.
The tone of Summer for the Gods is restrained. This is not by any means a polemic. Larson does not have an axe to grind. Of course, I’m sure there are certain readers who will find Larson’s lack of bias to be a bias in and of itself. (It might also have made the book a bit more lively. Objectivity is fine; subjectivity is more fun).
If there is a bias, it is the bias of fact and history. Neither Darrow or Bryan come out looking very good. Darrow is portrayed as something of a jerk, gravely disliked by his putative colleagues (the ACLU tried its best to get him off the case). Bryan simply looks like a fool. Darrow’s decision to call Bryan was a sublime strategic move. Even though it did not change the trial, it hurt the creationist cause. Bryan’s steadfast reliance on a Biblical interpretation led him to deny natural realities. When you read the transcript of his examination, Bryan seems an ignorant buffoon.
(Bryan died in his sleep shortly after the trial. Darrow stated he “died of a busted belly.” H.L. Mencken allegedly remarked, “We killed the son-of-a-bitch!”).
Maybe the most stunning thing about Summer for the Gods is that it was written in 1997. It feels like it came out yesterday. It is disheartening, to say the least, that this issue is still alive in 2014, and that we’ve walked in a large circle since 1925, ending right back in Dayton where we started.
Due in part to Supreme Court rulings on the First Amendment, the nature of the debate has changed. It is no longer about keeping evolution out, but of allowing alternate explanations in. The “competing theories” movement is far more subtle and nuanced than anything propounded by William Jennings Bryan. That’s what makes it so perfidious.
I don’t pretend to know with any certainty how the world began. On most days, I don’t even care. But I do know that in science, “theory” does not mean something scribbled on a napkin during happy hours at Applebee’s. It is an idea that gets put through the scientific method, that is verified through observations and experiments. Evolution rightly belongs in public school science classes. Creationism does not.
I went to Catholic schools from fifth grade all the way through law school. I learned a couple things from that. First, Catholic schools are expensive. Second, that the separation of church and state works, even within a parochial school. The math classes I went to taught math. The science classes taught science. The theology classes taught theology. It worked.
My experience does not point the way to an answer. It’s obvious that the solution it to maintain separation, to have different spheres for science and faith. It’s equally obvious, as Larson notes, that huge numbers of people view the Bible as authoritative on matters of science (and on every other aspect of life). For certain church leaders, the controversy is the giving tree, inspiring activism and donations and publicity. Larson is probably correct in noting that the Scopes Trial is not the trial of the century, but more aptly the trial of the centuries.
A verdict is not expected any time soon.
This is all well and good, because there is literally nothing else going on in the world that demands our attention.
The evolution controversy (manufactured and for-profit) is not a new phenomena. It has been brewing ever since Charles Darwin wrote his impenetrable classic, On the Origin of Species, which sits unread on my bookshelf, right next to Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.
One of the first– and undoubtedly most famous – salvos in this ongoing (and thoroughly ridiculous battle) was the 1925 case of State of Tennessee vs. John T. Scope, more familiarly known as the Scopes (or Scopes Monkey) Trial. Undoubtedly you’ve heard of the case. Perhaps, like me, you sometimes drink wine and watch Turner Classic Movies and saw part of Inherit the Wind before passing out one night.
Summer of the Gods is the brisk (266 pages of text), readable, Pulitzer Prize winning story of this seminal case. And if you’re like me, and your knowledge about this event is restricted to imbibing Yellow Tail chardonnay and watching Spencer Tracey spar with Frederic March, you will be surprised by what you learn.
Most surprisingly, perhaps, is that the Scopes Trial began as a publicity stunt. Whenever a controversial law is passed, opponents of that law will look for a test case to challenge the law’s constitutionality. Tennessee’s law, the Butler Act, forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools.
(The Butler Act made teaching evolution a jail-able offense, a fact that made even supporters of the law uncomfortable. Marinate on that, for a second. A law that would put teachers in jail for teaching a subject. In America. Jailed in America for teaching. It boggles the mind.)
The American Civil Liberties Union offered to provide the defense of anyone charged with violating the Butler Act. This would allow them to get the case before the State – and ultimately – United States Supreme Court, where they hoped it would be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment.
In Robinson’s Drugstore in Dayton, Tennessee, an entrepreneurial coal company manufacturer and several other conspirators – including the school superintendent – decided that a trial on the law would be great for tourism. With that in mind, and with all parties colluding, including the prosecutors and local judges, a teacher named John Scopes (with minimal local ties, for obvious reasons) was recruited to serve as the defendant. He was indicted, went before the judge, and was released without bond pending trial.
(It is unclear that Scopes ever actually violated the law. In later years he denied teaching evolution subsequent to the Butler Act. At his trial, the students called to testify against him – with Scopes’ blessing – were vague in the extreme. If Scopes ever taught them evolution, he didn't teach it very well).
The run-up to the trial promised everything the Dayton chamber of commerce could’ve hoped for. The prosecutors brought in William Jennings Bryan, a former secretary of state, presidential nominee, and ardent creationist. The defense countered with a controversial choice (even among other defense attorneys): Clarence Darrow, a latter day cross between Richard Dawkins and Barry Scheck.
The defense eventually settled on a strategy of arguing that evolution and the Bible were compatible. After the prosecution staged its case-in-chief, showing that Scopes taught evolution in violation of the law, Judge John Raulston suddenly tired of the spectacle. He ruled that the defense’s proposed experts were irrelevant to the narrow question of whether or not Scopes taught evolution.
To preserve a record for appeal, the defense made an offer of proof outside the presence of the jury. Darrow also shocked everyone by calling Bryan to the stand (and Bryan shocked everyone by taking the stand). The Darrow-Bryan examination is the most famous aspect of the Scopes trial, the part you’ve heard of even if you don’t know anything else about the case. Interestingly, Judge Raulston eventually determined Bryan’s testimony irrelevant and had it expunged from the record.
With its strategy thwarted, the defense conceded Scope’s conviction. Scopes was fined $100 and the defense appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The high court upheld the conviction, but overturned the sentence (the fine) on a technicality. Then, in an extremely unusual bit of dicta, they recommended that the prosecution not retry the case. The purpose of this suggestion was to keep the defense from appealing to the United States Supreme Court.
Larson tracks these many twists and turns in clear and transparent prose. He is a law professor, but writes for laypeople. He is good at explaining the different legal strategies and nuances of a fairly convoluted proceeding.
The tone of Summer for the Gods is restrained. This is not by any means a polemic. Larson does not have an axe to grind. Of course, I’m sure there are certain readers who will find Larson’s lack of bias to be a bias in and of itself. (It might also have made the book a bit more lively. Objectivity is fine; subjectivity is more fun).
If there is a bias, it is the bias of fact and history. Neither Darrow or Bryan come out looking very good. Darrow is portrayed as something of a jerk, gravely disliked by his putative colleagues (the ACLU tried its best to get him off the case). Bryan simply looks like a fool. Darrow’s decision to call Bryan was a sublime strategic move. Even though it did not change the trial, it hurt the creationist cause. Bryan’s steadfast reliance on a Biblical interpretation led him to deny natural realities. When you read the transcript of his examination, Bryan seems an ignorant buffoon.
(Bryan died in his sleep shortly after the trial. Darrow stated he “died of a busted belly.” H.L. Mencken allegedly remarked, “We killed the son-of-a-bitch!”).
Maybe the most stunning thing about Summer for the Gods is that it was written in 1997. It feels like it came out yesterday. It is disheartening, to say the least, that this issue is still alive in 2014, and that we’ve walked in a large circle since 1925, ending right back in Dayton where we started.
Due in part to Supreme Court rulings on the First Amendment, the nature of the debate has changed. It is no longer about keeping evolution out, but of allowing alternate explanations in. The “competing theories” movement is far more subtle and nuanced than anything propounded by William Jennings Bryan. That’s what makes it so perfidious.
I don’t pretend to know with any certainty how the world began. On most days, I don’t even care. But I do know that in science, “theory” does not mean something scribbled on a napkin during happy hours at Applebee’s. It is an idea that gets put through the scientific method, that is verified through observations and experiments. Evolution rightly belongs in public school science classes. Creationism does not.
I went to Catholic schools from fifth grade all the way through law school. I learned a couple things from that. First, Catholic schools are expensive. Second, that the separation of church and state works, even within a parochial school. The math classes I went to taught math. The science classes taught science. The theology classes taught theology. It worked.
My experience does not point the way to an answer. It’s obvious that the solution it to maintain separation, to have different spheres for science and faith. It’s equally obvious, as Larson notes, that huge numbers of people view the Bible as authoritative on matters of science (and on every other aspect of life). For certain church leaders, the controversy is the giving tree, inspiring activism and donations and publicity. Larson is probably correct in noting that the Scopes Trial is not the trial of the century, but more aptly the trial of the centuries.
A verdict is not expected any time soon.
February 15, 2018
4.5 - Overall an enjoyable and easy read. Excellent summary in the Afterword of the current (as of 2006) status of the creation vs. evolution debate.
March 9, 2020
I have only labelled a few Pulitzers as “Had any other book won, it would have been an injustice,” but Summer for the Gods earns that ranking.
The book capitivated me from the very beginning. It starts off citing the discourse between William Jennings Bryant and Clarence Darrow. Bryant, the 4 time presidential candidate and former Secretary of State, was arguing for the prosecution of Scopes. Clarence Darrow, already known as “the Attorney for the Damned”, had taken up the cause of Thomas Scopes. The two had a history---and their encounter in the trial was the stuff of legend.
After hooking the reader with this witty banter, the introduction ends. Chapter 1 starts off with the standard history of Lamarckian and Darwinian history. Just as the reader starts to think, “Oh no, this is simply another book about evolution” a twist is introduced. It is not about the theory of evolution, but about how said theory was introduced and received by the public as a whole.
I knew that the Scope's trial was essentially staged---that Scopes had been recruited to be a test case, but I did not realize the extent to which that was true.
I didn't realize that he had been recruited by city to challenge a law that had no penalty and no real intention of being enforced, but would put Dayton, TN on the map. That they were responding to a call from the ACLU to challenge the law, and Scopes was a substitute teacher with no friends/family (e.g. he had nothing to lose.)
When the case was started---and the ACLU came to Scopes defense---there was a familial attitude between the ACLU and city prosecutors. It was all for show after all.
Then William Jennings Bryant---four time presidential candidate and former Secretary of State---comes to the rescue. The city can't turn him down, but suddenly it's not a game! WJB is serious about prosecuting Scopes. He saw the trial as an open and shut case---the state had the right and obligation to establish curriculum’s and set standards. Right or wrong, it was not the purview of a teacher to supersede the state's role.
But Clarence Darrow steps in to defend him. (One thing the book doesn't do is show that Darrow and WJB had a personal animosity that went back decades!) Darrow put the entirety of revealed religion, creationism, and most importantly (to Darrow) WJB on trial. I’m not going to go into details on the trial or results, don’t want to spoil the book too much.
But the trial ends with about 20-30% of the book left!
The last few chapters are captivating.
First, Larson explores how the trial has become immortalized in America’s national consciousness. Apparently, while it capture media headlines at the time, it had almost become forgotten until a historian used it as the central object of the 1920s and Robert E Lee (a playwright not the general) wrote the play/movie “Inherent the Wind.” “Inherent the Wind” was a protest against McCarthyism, but has become the principal way in which people know/remember the Scopes Trial. Larson highlights the various ways in which the play failed to accurately portray the characters and events. It does not purport to be the trial itself---the names are all changed---but for most people this mythical presentation has become reality.
Second, the book talks about the legacy of Scopes and the Evolution/Creation debate. For example, when a related case (Epperson v Arkansas) came before the Supreme Court in the late 60’s, the Supreme Court Judge Abe Fortis fought to ensure that the case was decided upon religious freedom grounds. Fortis was a Jewish Tennessee high schooler during the Scopes trial and realized the risk associated with religion dictating scientific discourse in the school. His majority opinion in Epperson, however, ended up backfiring on him. It became the foundation upon which fundamentalist fought to have Creationism taught in public schools!
A strong five star review!
The book capitivated me from the very beginning. It starts off citing the discourse between William Jennings Bryant and Clarence Darrow. Bryant, the 4 time presidential candidate and former Secretary of State, was arguing for the prosecution of Scopes. Clarence Darrow, already known as “the Attorney for the Damned”, had taken up the cause of Thomas Scopes. The two had a history---and their encounter in the trial was the stuff of legend.
After hooking the reader with this witty banter, the introduction ends. Chapter 1 starts off with the standard history of Lamarckian and Darwinian history. Just as the reader starts to think, “Oh no, this is simply another book about evolution” a twist is introduced. It is not about the theory of evolution, but about how said theory was introduced and received by the public as a whole.
I knew that the Scope's trial was essentially staged---that Scopes had been recruited to be a test case, but I did not realize the extent to which that was true.
I didn't realize that he had been recruited by city to challenge a law that had no penalty and no real intention of being enforced, but would put Dayton, TN on the map. That they were responding to a call from the ACLU to challenge the law, and Scopes was a substitute teacher with no friends/family (e.g. he had nothing to lose.)
When the case was started---and the ACLU came to Scopes defense---there was a familial attitude between the ACLU and city prosecutors. It was all for show after all.
Then William Jennings Bryant---four time presidential candidate and former Secretary of State---comes to the rescue. The city can't turn him down, but suddenly it's not a game! WJB is serious about prosecuting Scopes. He saw the trial as an open and shut case---the state had the right and obligation to establish curriculum’s and set standards. Right or wrong, it was not the purview of a teacher to supersede the state's role.
But Clarence Darrow steps in to defend him. (One thing the book doesn't do is show that Darrow and WJB had a personal animosity that went back decades!) Darrow put the entirety of revealed religion, creationism, and most importantly (to Darrow) WJB on trial. I’m not going to go into details on the trial or results, don’t want to spoil the book too much.
But the trial ends with about 20-30% of the book left!
The last few chapters are captivating.
First, Larson explores how the trial has become immortalized in America’s national consciousness. Apparently, while it capture media headlines at the time, it had almost become forgotten until a historian used it as the central object of the 1920s and Robert E Lee (a playwright not the general) wrote the play/movie “Inherent the Wind.” “Inherent the Wind” was a protest against McCarthyism, but has become the principal way in which people know/remember the Scopes Trial. Larson highlights the various ways in which the play failed to accurately portray the characters and events. It does not purport to be the trial itself---the names are all changed---but for most people this mythical presentation has become reality.
Second, the book talks about the legacy of Scopes and the Evolution/Creation debate. For example, when a related case (Epperson v Arkansas) came before the Supreme Court in the late 60’s, the Supreme Court Judge Abe Fortis fought to ensure that the case was decided upon religious freedom grounds. Fortis was a Jewish Tennessee high schooler during the Scopes trial and realized the risk associated with religion dictating scientific discourse in the school. His majority opinion in Epperson, however, ended up backfiring on him. It became the foundation upon which fundamentalist fought to have Creationism taught in public schools!
A strong five star review!
April 27, 2022
In the last year, I have developed an insatiable fascination for the clash between religion and science, specifically as this encounter relates to social policy. The famous Scopes trial (also commonly referred to as "the Monkey Trial") was the most fervently hyped and widely publicized legal dispute on this matter, and Edward Larson's book does the confrontation justice.
The book is divided into three sections:
Before:
Larson begins by detailing the intellectual leaps that les to Charles Darwin's theories on evolution, followed by the rise of Christian fundamentalism and its rejection of the concept on religious and ethical grounds. The global climate at the turn of the century leads religious groups to associate Darwinism with wanton brutality in the shape of World War I. Finally, with Darwinism removing God from the picture, the Tennessee state legislature forbade its teaching. Shortly thereafter, a group of citizens from Dayton decide to "test" the law, using a local science teacher as their guinea pig.
During:
Aside from being a high-profile debate between agnosticism and theism, the Scopes trial was also a battle of big personalities. The defense counsel Clarence Darrow was an intimidating yet charming lawyer, famous for his controversial clients. William Jennings Bryan, arguing for the prosecution (though not as legal counsel), had three decades of political campaigns and speech circuits under his belt - Bryan alone was responsible for drawing large crowds to Dayton. Furthermore, each side had their own philosophy and legal strategy. Darrow wanted to frame the issue as an assault on intelligence, while Bryan aimed to keep a narrower focus, arguing that it was a matter of upholding a majoritarian statute. It's this dynamic and each player's celebrity status that elevated this trial's status to that of a spectacle.
After:
Larson details the related events that have taken place since 1925 and the familiar arguments that continue to surface. His style is very journalistic and uneditorial, which means it's dry and very collected, though his bias towards science isn't successfully veiled.
This was a great read for many reasons, the most notable of which is the narration of the trial itself with Larson's characterization of each important figure allowing for electric court room scenes to unfold brilliantly. But also noteworthy are the questions his research asks: What should be the statute of limitations on government by the majority? Who should decide public school curricula? Why are Christian fundamentalists so opposed to the Darwinian model when they readily accept the Copernican model?
I recommend this book for anyone interested in the intersection between politics, science and religion. It is a perfect foundation for the understanding of the ensuing debate.
The book is divided into three sections:
Before:
Larson begins by detailing the intellectual leaps that les to Charles Darwin's theories on evolution, followed by the rise of Christian fundamentalism and its rejection of the concept on religious and ethical grounds. The global climate at the turn of the century leads religious groups to associate Darwinism with wanton brutality in the shape of World War I. Finally, with Darwinism removing God from the picture, the Tennessee state legislature forbade its teaching. Shortly thereafter, a group of citizens from Dayton decide to "test" the law, using a local science teacher as their guinea pig.
During:
Aside from being a high-profile debate between agnosticism and theism, the Scopes trial was also a battle of big personalities. The defense counsel Clarence Darrow was an intimidating yet charming lawyer, famous for his controversial clients. William Jennings Bryan, arguing for the prosecution (though not as legal counsel), had three decades of political campaigns and speech circuits under his belt - Bryan alone was responsible for drawing large crowds to Dayton. Furthermore, each side had their own philosophy and legal strategy. Darrow wanted to frame the issue as an assault on intelligence, while Bryan aimed to keep a narrower focus, arguing that it was a matter of upholding a majoritarian statute. It's this dynamic and each player's celebrity status that elevated this trial's status to that of a spectacle.
After:
Larson details the related events that have taken place since 1925 and the familiar arguments that continue to surface. His style is very journalistic and uneditorial, which means it's dry and very collected, though his bias towards science isn't successfully veiled.
This was a great read for many reasons, the most notable of which is the narration of the trial itself with Larson's characterization of each important figure allowing for electric court room scenes to unfold brilliantly. But also noteworthy are the questions his research asks: What should be the statute of limitations on government by the majority? Who should decide public school curricula? Why are Christian fundamentalists so opposed to the Darwinian model when they readily accept the Copernican model?
I recommend this book for anyone interested in the intersection between politics, science and religion. It is a perfect foundation for the understanding of the ensuing debate.
February 24, 2018
4.5 This book leads up to the Scopes Trials by explaining the issues of tension between religion and evolution well before the trial. Williams Jennings Bryant is well covered. The trial is covered in detail and also what impact the controversy had on the debate going forward. Most readers will remember the Scopes Trial from the film Inherit the Wind, and this book makes clear what was accurate in that film and what was not. Intelligent Design today is covered too. It's really a comprehensive and interesting look at the trial and all of its implications on education, law, and the debate with science and religion.
May 25, 2020
The American controversy over evolution and creation is mainly fought over what is taught in US public school biology classes. Actually, neither someone opposes the teaching of evolution, nor there is a serious debate among biologists over the essential evolutional concept of common descent. The discussion focuses on theology and philosophy. Critics of the evolution usually demand removing it from the classroom, balancing it with some other form of creationist instruction, or teaching it as “just a theory”.
The trial of John Scopes highlighted the first phase of antievolutionism, marked by efforts to remove the evolution from the high school biology classroom altogether. From the outset, the so-called antievolution crusade was seen as evidence of a new rupture between traditional values and modernity. However, the antievolutionism did not cause that rupture; it simply exposed it. By the early 20th century, studies began detecting a widening gap between the God-fearing American majority and the disbelieving cultural elite. Not that the elite wanted to denounce biblical revelation, but the rise of rational modes of analysis made it unbelievable.
No idea split the modernists from the fundamentalists more than the Darwinian theory of human evolution. It was the scientific method in general, as applied to all aspects of life, that lay at core of modernity, but Darwinism was crucial in applying that method to the key issues of human morality and biological origins.
The Scopes Trial of 1925 has had an enormous impact on the national relationship between science and religion. It not only symbolized modernist VS fundamentalist debate, but also shaped the development of religious freedom in America.
Summer for the Gods comprehends a broad scope of subjects. Edward J. Larson creates a very detailed analysis of the trial itself, its immortalizing in the nation’s consciousness, and the creationist-evolutionist debate. Throughly researched, compelling, and informative.
The trial of John Scopes highlighted the first phase of antievolutionism, marked by efforts to remove the evolution from the high school biology classroom altogether. From the outset, the so-called antievolution crusade was seen as evidence of a new rupture between traditional values and modernity. However, the antievolutionism did not cause that rupture; it simply exposed it. By the early 20th century, studies began detecting a widening gap between the God-fearing American majority and the disbelieving cultural elite. Not that the elite wanted to denounce biblical revelation, but the rise of rational modes of analysis made it unbelievable.
No idea split the modernists from the fundamentalists more than the Darwinian theory of human evolution. It was the scientific method in general, as applied to all aspects of life, that lay at core of modernity, but Darwinism was crucial in applying that method to the key issues of human morality and biological origins.
The Scopes Trial of 1925 has had an enormous impact on the national relationship between science and religion. It not only symbolized modernist VS fundamentalist debate, but also shaped the development of religious freedom in America.
Summer for the Gods comprehends a broad scope of subjects. Edward J. Larson creates a very detailed analysis of the trial itself, its immortalizing in the nation’s consciousness, and the creationist-evolutionist debate. Throughly researched, compelling, and informative.
February 23, 2018
"It's déjà vu all over again.", as the wag said and that's the feeling you wind up with after finishing Edward J. Larson's Summer For the Gods: The Scope's Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. The arguments and counter-arguments discussed in this excellent book about the famous "Monkey" trial of 1925 recur again and again in our own time. I have no doubt that there are court cases winding their way through the judicial maze even now concerning the teaching of evolution in public schools. It is a constant hot button issue for a segment of American citizens.
In the 1920's the ACLU was interested in freedom of speech and expression issues and when the Butler Act was passed in Tennessee, they became interested in developing a test case. They offered to defend any teacher charged for teaching the descent of man from Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Dayton, Tennessee, on the other hand, saw the offer as an opportunity to garner publicity for their town and persuaded a substitute biology teacher, John Scopes, to become the defendant. Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan promptly came on board, offering their services for respectively, the defense and the prosecution. Each had their own personal ax to grind. The game was now on. The spectacle had now begun.
The book is divided neatly into Before, During, and After. It covers all the issues in detail and if most of your information comes from the movie versions of this trial, you will be amazed and surprised at how much more interesting this story really is. Complex in its arguments and pertinent to today's headlines as well, this one is a definite Don't Miss!
In the 1920's the ACLU was interested in freedom of speech and expression issues and when the Butler Act was passed in Tennessee, they became interested in developing a test case. They offered to defend any teacher charged for teaching the descent of man from Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Dayton, Tennessee, on the other hand, saw the offer as an opportunity to garner publicity for their town and persuaded a substitute biology teacher, John Scopes, to become the defendant. Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan promptly came on board, offering their services for respectively, the defense and the prosecution. Each had their own personal ax to grind. The game was now on. The spectacle had now begun.
The book is divided neatly into Before, During, and After. It covers all the issues in detail and if most of your information comes from the movie versions of this trial, you will be amazed and surprised at how much more interesting this story really is. Complex in its arguments and pertinent to today's headlines as well, this one is a definite Don't Miss!
February 23, 2018
Larson’s Pulitzer Prize winning book “Summer for the Gods” was a very enlightening book. I really like reading about the conflict between science and religion and getting the true story of this famous “Trial of the Century”.
This book gave a great history of the Scopes Trial or the well-known “Monkey Trial”. He describes the run-up to the trial and the trial and the outcome and what it has meant for American society and American culture. We get an intriguing picture of some of the key players, Clarence Darrow, the defense attorney and John Scopes a young teacher teaching Evolution thrown into the trial as a test case, and Williams Jennings Bryan the attorney for the prosecution and proponent for the emerging Fundamentalist movement. There is a good overview of the evolving status of creationism and evolutionism over the past century, especially in relation to school curriculum and religious revivals. We also learn about the role of the ACLU which was interested in this case on the grounds of civil liberties for education, speech and expression.
There is much court room drama described and thoughts and actions of the locals and the events following the decision. We see the passion people have regarding scientific and religious beliefs. And the debate that still exists today, now the term Intelligent Design is regularly used and debated.
This book is highly recommended for those who have heard the legends of the Scopes trial and for the younger generation who might not have ever heard of it except in passing. It helps to understand history and the path it takes today.
This book gave a great history of the Scopes Trial or the well-known “Monkey Trial”. He describes the run-up to the trial and the trial and the outcome and what it has meant for American society and American culture. We get an intriguing picture of some of the key players, Clarence Darrow, the defense attorney and John Scopes a young teacher teaching Evolution thrown into the trial as a test case, and Williams Jennings Bryan the attorney for the prosecution and proponent for the emerging Fundamentalist movement. There is a good overview of the evolving status of creationism and evolutionism over the past century, especially in relation to school curriculum and religious revivals. We also learn about the role of the ACLU which was interested in this case on the grounds of civil liberties for education, speech and expression.
There is much court room drama described and thoughts and actions of the locals and the events following the decision. We see the passion people have regarding scientific and religious beliefs. And the debate that still exists today, now the term Intelligent Design is regularly used and debated.
This book is highly recommended for those who have heard the legends of the Scopes trial and for the younger generation who might not have ever heard of it except in passing. It helps to understand history and the path it takes today.
May 8, 2013
I've been going up to NW Wisconsin for several years now with members of the Gregory family to stay in the house once occupied by an ancestor and now used as a vacation retreat. Knowing the area, I can now go up there without a book, confident that the Hayward Public Library twenty or so miles away will have titles worth purchasing. That is where I purchased this history a few days ago.
This writer, both a lawyer and an historian, has long specialized on matters pertaining the themes treated in this history of the Scopes Trial. Author of several books about evolutionary theory, Larson brings his expertise to bear on the legal issues of the case pertaining to such matters as the separation of church and state, the first amendment to the Constitution and the gradual extension of federal liberties to the states by means of the fourteenth. As an historian, he puts the trial in context, discussing not only the facts of the case, but also the context within which it occurred and the cultural repercussions it has had up to the present day. In so doing, many common misconceptions are exploded.
Like many cultural histories, this is a fun, and often amusing, read. Larson writes well, certainly much better than the average academic historian and much, much better than one could reasonably expect of a lawyer. Even if constitutional issues don't excite, even if the scientific issues of creationism versus evolutionism seems irrelevant, even if the political conundrums of individual liberties versus majoritarian rule seem inscruitable, this book will still serve as an entertaining page-turner.
This writer, both a lawyer and an historian, has long specialized on matters pertaining the themes treated in this history of the Scopes Trial. Author of several books about evolutionary theory, Larson brings his expertise to bear on the legal issues of the case pertaining to such matters as the separation of church and state, the first amendment to the Constitution and the gradual extension of federal liberties to the states by means of the fourteenth. As an historian, he puts the trial in context, discussing not only the facts of the case, but also the context within which it occurred and the cultural repercussions it has had up to the present day. In so doing, many common misconceptions are exploded.
Like many cultural histories, this is a fun, and often amusing, read. Larson writes well, certainly much better than the average academic historian and much, much better than one could reasonably expect of a lawyer. Even if constitutional issues don't excite, even if the scientific issues of creationism versus evolutionism seems irrelevant, even if the political conundrums of individual liberties versus majoritarian rule seem inscruitable, this book will still serve as an entertaining page-turner.
September 22, 2022
Excellent, if not always readable account, of the famous 1925 Scopes trial, and what really happened - a quite important and difficult task because the 'monkey trial' as it is often called, has attracted more misinformation, misunderstanding and down right legends then it is possible for anyone to refute - even on Goodreads one of the most lengthy reviewers says, in flat contradiction to Mr. Larson's book (and the facts) that under the Butler Act of 1925 Scopes, or any other teacher, faced going to gaol for teaching evolution. In fact teaching evolution was only ever a misdemeanour, like parking violation. The most fascinating part of the book is the way it places the trial (which was a set up various citizens of Dayton, Tennessee as a way of gaining publicity and boosting their economically declining town) in the context of its time. Doing this brings all sorts of interesting, and unexpected, issues to light. For example The anti-evolutionists, and Williams Jennings Bryan in particularly, were anti-evolution and anti-Darwin because of the opposition to the new fangled eugenics movement.
The book is particularly strong in its presentation of how the trial was presented and used from the 1930s through the 1960s and how it was used as way of condemning and fighting McCarthyism, particularly in the version presented in the play and film 'Inherit the Wind' which, although it's heart was in the right place in terms of McCarthyism, had as much to do with what really happened as 'The Crucible' is an accurate presentation of Salem witch trials.
As a UK reader my quibble about it's readability really refers to the opening chapters which set the seen in terms of what many religious groups in the USA thought about evolution. It is heavy with names and organisations that are not just unknown but alien to us. But is worth persevering through any longeurs to allow the book to get into the trial proper, and the background proves in the end to be relevant and vital to the story.
I think anyone reading the book who has not grown up in the USA will constantly feel baffled at the way so many religious people in the United States are obsessed with insisting that the Bible is literally true. No poetics, no metaphor, if it says God created the world in 7 days of 24 hours, even if the sun wasn't created till day 4, and on and on through so many other absurdities. As someone raised a catholic and who attended schools run by catholic religious orders it is even more baffling. The Catholic church is crammed full of bizarre beliefs but even the infallible pope has never asked us to believe in the word accuracy of the Bible. I can remember many years ago, when I was a student, meeting two members of Opus Dei (if you aren't aware of it looking for free thinker member of Opus Dei is like searching for a civil libertarian amongst the Klu Klux Klan) both of them scientist dealing with research concerning evolution. They had no problem with combining science and a theological outlook that positively medieval. But they would never have thought it necessary to insist that the book of genesis was a accurate description of the world was created.
Of course explaining why so many people in the USA are obsessed with denying that the earth is more then a few thousand years old is not the point of this book. It would a different and far longer book to try and do that. For those of us not from the USA it will always be difficult to quite grasp why the issues behind the Scopes trial was, and remains, so important.
The book is particularly strong in its presentation of how the trial was presented and used from the 1930s through the 1960s and how it was used as way of condemning and fighting McCarthyism, particularly in the version presented in the play and film 'Inherit the Wind' which, although it's heart was in the right place in terms of McCarthyism, had as much to do with what really happened as 'The Crucible' is an accurate presentation of Salem witch trials.
As a UK reader my quibble about it's readability really refers to the opening chapters which set the seen in terms of what many religious groups in the USA thought about evolution. It is heavy with names and organisations that are not just unknown but alien to us. But is worth persevering through any longeurs to allow the book to get into the trial proper, and the background proves in the end to be relevant and vital to the story.
I think anyone reading the book who has not grown up in the USA will constantly feel baffled at the way so many religious people in the United States are obsessed with insisting that the Bible is literally true. No poetics, no metaphor, if it says God created the world in 7 days of 24 hours, even if the sun wasn't created till day 4, and on and on through so many other absurdities. As someone raised a catholic and who attended schools run by catholic religious orders it is even more baffling. The Catholic church is crammed full of bizarre beliefs but even the infallible pope has never asked us to believe in the word accuracy of the Bible. I can remember many years ago, when I was a student, meeting two members of Opus Dei (if you aren't aware of it looking for free thinker member of Opus Dei is like searching for a civil libertarian amongst the Klu Klux Klan) both of them scientist dealing with research concerning evolution. They had no problem with combining science and a theological outlook that positively medieval. But they would never have thought it necessary to insist that the book of genesis was a accurate description of the world was created.
Of course explaining why so many people in the USA are obsessed with denying that the earth is more then a few thousand years old is not the point of this book. It would a different and far longer book to try and do that. For those of us not from the USA it will always be difficult to quite grasp why the issues behind the Scopes trial was, and remains, so important.
March 31, 2018
If "Inherit the Wind," a long-running Broadway play and a 1960's movie based on the Scopes trial, is your only familiarity with the 1925 so-called "Monkey Trial/Trial of the Century," you need to read Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion by
Edward J. Larson. For an unbiased historian's account of the actual trial and a lawyer's mindset, Mr. Larson provides a thoroughly researched telling of the era's culture, religious and political views, the background for the trial, the personalities involved, and the issues involved in the debate between science and religion in education. The author provides the background of Darwinism & evolution and the tensions built up with the Christian fundamentalist view of creation; and the planning of the trial's contrived beginnings between the lawyers and the defendant which was a surprise to me. The trial scenes describe the carnival-like atmosphere of Dayton, TN and the bombast of the trial attorneys, Clarence Darrow and Wm. Jennings Bryan.
Mr. Larson's writing is fluid, including bits of humor, well-documented with references and even-handed in his treatment of the issues. The "Afterword" is a very helpful summary of the impact of the trial and the ongoing controversy of teaching religion & evolutionary science in schools. Mr. Larson won the Pulitzer Prize in History in 1998 for this work.
Edward J. Larson. For an unbiased historian's account of the actual trial and a lawyer's mindset, Mr. Larson provides a thoroughly researched telling of the era's culture, religious and political views, the background for the trial, the personalities involved, and the issues involved in the debate between science and religion in education. The author provides the background of Darwinism & evolution and the tensions built up with the Christian fundamentalist view of creation; and the planning of the trial's contrived beginnings between the lawyers and the defendant which was a surprise to me. The trial scenes describe the carnival-like atmosphere of Dayton, TN and the bombast of the trial attorneys, Clarence Darrow and Wm. Jennings Bryan.Mr. Larson's writing is fluid, including bits of humor, well-documented with references and even-handed in his treatment of the issues. The "Afterword" is a very helpful summary of the impact of the trial and the ongoing controversy of teaching religion & evolutionary science in schools. Mr. Larson won the Pulitzer Prize in History in 1998 for this work.
December 28, 2008
An excellent book that discusses, in very readable form, the historical and intellectual foundations of, and the struggle between, the rural (largely Southern) religious majoritarian anti-modernism of William Jennings Bryan (the Democratic populist of Nebraska, who ran for President in 1896, 1900, 1904, and 1908) and the modern, skeptical, rationalist and ever-courageous Clarence Darrow of Chicago. The fundamental divide in America still today. The afterward clearly traces the rise of recent creationism and Intelligent Design theory in this context. Good book.
November 15, 2014
Summer for the Gods is phenomenal. The book tells a riveting story well, but it elevates itself over other histories by critically examining the public's later interpretation of the events, and showing all the effects of such interpretation (also probably why it got the 1998 Pulitzer Prize in History). “Before” “During” and “And After” are its three parts, covering the build-up to the prosecution, the trial itself, and the public’s reaction to and later interpretation of the events.
The book details the 1925 "Scopes monkey trial", but first situates the prosecution. Early 20th century Americans were religious. Religion and education hadn't really done battle because public high school was not yet widespread, but that changed quickly: Tennessee's high school population was 10,000 in 1910, then grew to more than 50,000 by 1925. (24) The mass public education of children raised the question of what to teach them.
Two organizations destined to battle over such topic emerged at about the same time. In 1919 the World's Christian Fundamentals Association was founded (leading to the term “fundamentalist” to describe its adherents) to fight the slide towards modernism. (36) The ACLU began in 1920. (82) Shortly thereafter, it started a committee on academic freedom, and while looking for a test case, discovered Tennessee's new anti-evolution law, which fined public school teachers who espoused the doctrine; the ACLU took out an advertisement in a Tennessee newspaper, offering free legal representation, and a Dayton teacher took the bait. (82-83) The ACLU wanted to defend academic freedom, here, the right of the teacher to teach biology how he wanted, but when populist politician William Jennings Bryan offered to help the prosecution, Clarence Darrow publicly offered his services (the defendant accepted) and the case (or at least the defense's case) became about religion --Darrow's agnosticism being nationally known. (100)
Contrary to later portrayals, Larson's description of the prosecution, and especially Bryan, suggest sincere belief and eminently reasonable principles (at least in theory, not necessarily as applied to this statute), for example, Bryan frames the case as broadly about "the right of the people speaking through the legislature, to control the schools which they create and support" or more narrowly about how "Mr. Scopes demands pay for teaching what the state does not want taught and demands that the state furnish him with an audience of children to which he can talk and say things contrary to law." (128, 129) In essence, the anti-evolution statute represented the people's ability to exercise control over their public schools.
The prosecution was cut and dried, an easy factual case (and one that got a conviction after only a few minutes of jury deliberations, as the defense admitted he taught evolution) but the defense wanted to put on experts as part of its case. After the prosecution rested, and the judge denied the defense’s attempt to introduce expert witnesses, he (the judge) allowed them to make an offer of proof -- essentially, showing a later-reviewing appellate court what its experts would have said. But in addition to its listed experts, the defense (specifically, Darrow) had a trick up its sleeve. Darrow's method to get Bryan on the witness stand was formalistic--he presented Bryan as an "expert" witness on the Bible -- as part of the defense's case, they asserted the prosecution needed to show that teaching evolution was contrary to the Bible's teachings, because technically it prohibited only "teach[ing] any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and [teaching] instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals" -- and was able to grill him about biblical "facts", providing the grist for later science-makes-religion-look-stupid articles about the trial.
In some sense, the prosecution itself ended in a draw: although Scopes was convicted, it was overturned by the Tennessee Supreme Court, which used a procedural formality (involving the imposition of the sentence) to vacate the conviction while sustaining the law’s constitutionality. (221)
The telling of the story of the trial is excellent, but the last third is where Larson’s book moves from very good to excellent: in it, he documents and critiques (the evolution of) later perceptions of the event. Both during and after trial, elite opinion sided with the defense, and was successful in focusing portrayals on Darrow’s cross-examination of Bryan, and in painting the prosecution as out for blood, when in fact the maximum punishment for the misdemeanor was a fine, and Bryan had told Scopes that he would pay it for him.
The defense’s arguments about individual liberty were fondly recalled, while the prosecution’s articulation of majority power was forgotten. Larson surveys later textbooks and popular historical accounts of the time, one of the first of which was poorly researched (at least regarding the Scopes trial) yet immensely popular and influential, with subsequent works using it as a quasi-primary source, as it was written in 1931. (225)
Thinking that the Scopes trial represented a simple good v. evil or smart v. dumb, and that the good guys humiliated the bad ones, had a couple interesting effects. Because that perception of the trial became so widespread in subsequent years, it drove fundamentalists essentially underground -- their views rejected, yet still disgusted with materialistic evolution as a worldview, they decided to stop trying to convince others, and formed their own private schools and society. (236) The Supreme Court helped further this perception, announcing a significant shift in its First Amendment doctrine in a 1968 case striking down an Arkansas law similar to the one that Scopes violated (and enacted around the same time). In Epperson, the Court mentioned the Scopes case, using it as evidence of the legislature’s purported purpose to ensure teaching of a particular religion in the school; the Court disapproved, and announced that to pass muster under the Establishment Clause, a statute must have a “secular purpose.” (260) Now, such statutes were unconstitutional. Finally, the idea that science won made scientists complacent. They didn’t need to convince the public to accept evolution, because (especially post-1968) the public appeared powerless to stop them.
But the public hasn’t (yet) really accepted evolution, and they have devised creative ways to circumvent Epperson’s requirement. Almost sixty years post-Scopes, in 1982, Americans were divided 50/50 between believing in a biblical account of creation and those believing in evolution (those believing in God-influenced evolution are lumped in with those believing in evolution without God). And more than 80% wanted to include creationist theories in public school curriculum. (258) That matters because there are ways to undermine evolution without banning the teaching of it, e.g. presenting creationism and evolution as two competing (presumably, to a student, at least initially equally valid) “theories,” preying on the difference between the scientific use of the term and the general one.
(This book was published in 1997; based on more recent data it looks like scientists have had some success in convincing the public, albeit of the slow-and-steady variety:
Gallup’s 1999 poll pegged the creationist-inclusion number at 68%, with the former 50/50 split remaining in place; in 2005 only 54% of Americans wanted creationism taught in public schools .)
This book should move to the top of your list if you’re interested in learning the context of and complexities involved with a famous trial, or in developing some measure of nuance when discussing the issue of sincere religious beliefs conflicting with science, especially in the realm of publicly-funded schools. The fact that I would recommend this book equally to both a fervent believer and ardent atheist speaks to Larson’s thoroughness and even-handedness in canvassing a brutally contested terrain.
The book details the 1925 "Scopes monkey trial", but first situates the prosecution. Early 20th century Americans were religious. Religion and education hadn't really done battle because public high school was not yet widespread, but that changed quickly: Tennessee's high school population was 10,000 in 1910, then grew to more than 50,000 by 1925. (24) The mass public education of children raised the question of what to teach them.
Two organizations destined to battle over such topic emerged at about the same time. In 1919 the World's Christian Fundamentals Association was founded (leading to the term “fundamentalist” to describe its adherents) to fight the slide towards modernism. (36) The ACLU began in 1920. (82) Shortly thereafter, it started a committee on academic freedom, and while looking for a test case, discovered Tennessee's new anti-evolution law, which fined public school teachers who espoused the doctrine; the ACLU took out an advertisement in a Tennessee newspaper, offering free legal representation, and a Dayton teacher took the bait. (82-83) The ACLU wanted to defend academic freedom, here, the right of the teacher to teach biology how he wanted, but when populist politician William Jennings Bryan offered to help the prosecution, Clarence Darrow publicly offered his services (the defendant accepted) and the case (or at least the defense's case) became about religion --Darrow's agnosticism being nationally known. (100)
Contrary to later portrayals, Larson's description of the prosecution, and especially Bryan, suggest sincere belief and eminently reasonable principles (at least in theory, not necessarily as applied to this statute), for example, Bryan frames the case as broadly about "the right of the people speaking through the legislature, to control the schools which they create and support" or more narrowly about how "Mr. Scopes demands pay for teaching what the state does not want taught and demands that the state furnish him with an audience of children to which he can talk and say things contrary to law." (128, 129) In essence, the anti-evolution statute represented the people's ability to exercise control over their public schools.
The prosecution was cut and dried, an easy factual case (and one that got a conviction after only a few minutes of jury deliberations, as the defense admitted he taught evolution) but the defense wanted to put on experts as part of its case. After the prosecution rested, and the judge denied the defense’s attempt to introduce expert witnesses, he (the judge) allowed them to make an offer of proof -- essentially, showing a later-reviewing appellate court what its experts would have said. But in addition to its listed experts, the defense (specifically, Darrow) had a trick up its sleeve. Darrow's method to get Bryan on the witness stand was formalistic--he presented Bryan as an "expert" witness on the Bible -- as part of the defense's case, they asserted the prosecution needed to show that teaching evolution was contrary to the Bible's teachings, because technically it prohibited only "teach[ing] any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and [teaching] instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals" -- and was able to grill him about biblical "facts", providing the grist for later science-makes-religion-look-stupid articles about the trial.
In some sense, the prosecution itself ended in a draw: although Scopes was convicted, it was overturned by the Tennessee Supreme Court, which used a procedural formality (involving the imposition of the sentence) to vacate the conviction while sustaining the law’s constitutionality. (221)
The telling of the story of the trial is excellent, but the last third is where Larson’s book moves from very good to excellent: in it, he documents and critiques (the evolution of) later perceptions of the event. Both during and after trial, elite opinion sided with the defense, and was successful in focusing portrayals on Darrow’s cross-examination of Bryan, and in painting the prosecution as out for blood, when in fact the maximum punishment for the misdemeanor was a fine, and Bryan had told Scopes that he would pay it for him.
The defense’s arguments about individual liberty were fondly recalled, while the prosecution’s articulation of majority power was forgotten. Larson surveys later textbooks and popular historical accounts of the time, one of the first of which was poorly researched (at least regarding the Scopes trial) yet immensely popular and influential, with subsequent works using it as a quasi-primary source, as it was written in 1931. (225)
Thinking that the Scopes trial represented a simple good v. evil or smart v. dumb, and that the good guys humiliated the bad ones, had a couple interesting effects. Because that perception of the trial became so widespread in subsequent years, it drove fundamentalists essentially underground -- their views rejected, yet still disgusted with materialistic evolution as a worldview, they decided to stop trying to convince others, and formed their own private schools and society. (236) The Supreme Court helped further this perception, announcing a significant shift in its First Amendment doctrine in a 1968 case striking down an Arkansas law similar to the one that Scopes violated (and enacted around the same time). In Epperson, the Court mentioned the Scopes case, using it as evidence of the legislature’s purported purpose to ensure teaching of a particular religion in the school; the Court disapproved, and announced that to pass muster under the Establishment Clause, a statute must have a “secular purpose.” (260) Now, such statutes were unconstitutional. Finally, the idea that science won made scientists complacent. They didn’t need to convince the public to accept evolution, because (especially post-1968) the public appeared powerless to stop them.
But the public hasn’t (yet) really accepted evolution, and they have devised creative ways to circumvent Epperson’s requirement. Almost sixty years post-Scopes, in 1982, Americans were divided 50/50 between believing in a biblical account of creation and those believing in evolution (those believing in God-influenced evolution are lumped in with those believing in evolution without God). And more than 80% wanted to include creationist theories in public school curriculum. (258) That matters because there are ways to undermine evolution without banning the teaching of it, e.g. presenting creationism and evolution as two competing (presumably, to a student, at least initially equally valid) “theories,” preying on the difference between the scientific use of the term and the general one.
(This book was published in 1997; based on more recent data it looks like scientists have had some success in convincing the public, albeit of the slow-and-steady variety:
Gallup’s 1999 poll pegged the creationist-inclusion number at 68%, with the former 50/50 split remaining in place; in 2005 only 54% of Americans wanted creationism taught in public schools .)
This book should move to the top of your list if you’re interested in learning the context of and complexities involved with a famous trial, or in developing some measure of nuance when discussing the issue of sincere religious beliefs conflicting with science, especially in the realm of publicly-funded schools. The fact that I would recommend this book equally to both a fervent believer and ardent atheist speaks to Larson’s thoroughness and even-handedness in canvassing a brutally contested terrain.
March 11, 2020
Accessible
Descriptive
This book is written so that those who
*grew up in the American Bible Belt or the American South will easily follow the discussion.
*have a basic understanding of the history of the fight for civil rights will easily follow the discussion.
*enjoy personalities and characters will also easily follow the discussion.
What started out as a publicity stunt turned into a cultural phenomena. Read here how it all came into being.
Descriptive
This book is written so that those who
*grew up in the American Bible Belt or the American South will easily follow the discussion.
*have a basic understanding of the history of the fight for civil rights will easily follow the discussion.
*enjoy personalities and characters will also easily follow the discussion.
What started out as a publicity stunt turned into a cultural phenomena. Read here how it all came into being.
March 11, 2022
meh… i think it’s honestly just a better idea to read the trial transcript if you’re interested and then read some other secondary sources.
Read
July 19, 2018A meticulously researched account of the 1925 Scopes trial. I was expecting more about the last aspect of the subtitle (the continuing debate over science and religion), so this history wasn't what I was specifically looking for, but I still appreciated how Larson smoothly depicted the nuances of the cultural context of the trial. His account was quite balanced while still depicting clearly the passions of all sides of the debate. The writing was always clear, but the immense amounts of quotations without additional analysis and the nature of the trial (repetitive, sides arguing past one another) often dragged the reading down for me.
While the very painstaking depiction of the trial was necessary, I still vastly preferred the final chapters of the book that analyzed the immediate reactions as well as the emergent mythos of the trial. The Scopes trial didn't merit notice in my high school history class, and I've never seen Inherit the Wind, but I'm familiar with it being a cultural sticking point, so I appreciated the depth to which Larson was able to trace how and why misconceptions evolved (yeah, yeah, pun intended).
I had mistaken expectations about the extent of which the book got into the continuing debate alluded to by the subtitle, and I was a little irritated when cultural changes in regard to how fundamentalism's stand against evolution manifested were only analyzed in terms of the Scopes trial. I know, I know, that's the focus of the book, but still, for example, I wanted to know about the other contributing factors that led to a shift from fundamentalists protesting the teaching of evolution in public schools to abandoning public education for home schooling or private Christian schools. What were the economic and broader social changes that went into this? For example, did racial integration play a part? I completely understood why the book focused on just putting this in the context of antievolution, but it still felt like a pretty superficial analysis to make a point of pointing out this shift but only explaining it in the antievolution context.
While the very painstaking depiction of the trial was necessary, I still vastly preferred the final chapters of the book that analyzed the immediate reactions as well as the emergent mythos of the trial. The Scopes trial didn't merit notice in my high school history class, and I've never seen Inherit the Wind, but I'm familiar with it being a cultural sticking point, so I appreciated the depth to which Larson was able to trace how and why misconceptions evolved (yeah, yeah, pun intended).
I had mistaken expectations about the extent of which the book got into the continuing debate alluded to by the subtitle, and I was a little irritated when cultural changes in regard to how fundamentalism's stand against evolution manifested were only analyzed in terms of the Scopes trial. I know, I know, that's the focus of the book, but still, for example, I wanted to know about the other contributing factors that led to a shift from fundamentalists protesting the teaching of evolution in public schools to abandoning public education for home schooling or private Christian schools. What were the economic and broader social changes that went into this? For example, did racial integration play a part? I completely understood why the book focused on just putting this in the context of antievolution, but it still felt like a pretty superficial analysis to make a point of pointing out this shift but only explaining it in the antievolution context.
November 17, 2008
By the late nineteenth century, Darwin's evolutionary theories had been widely accepted by Christian fundamentalists.. The had adopted a form of Lamarckian explanation for changes in form. In fact, James Orr, well-known theologian, wrote in The Fundamentals, " Assume God – as many devout evolutionists do– to be immanent in the evolutionary process, and His intelligence and purpose to be expressed in it; then evolution, so far from conflicting with theism, may become a new and heightened form of theistic argument. What raised their ire was his theory of natural selection with its implicit unguided randomness. Edward J. Larson is the author of an excellent history of the Scopes trial. He reports the history of the debate that led to events in Tennessee. Natural selection had been pretty much ignored until genetics began to supply some evidence for it in the early twentieth century. Genetics provided further evidence that change was due to random variation. This the fundamentalists could not abide. Soon evolution came under attack, natural selection becoming fully identified with all of Darwin. The very nature of science– that is, continual debate– provided ammunition to the forces of darkness although debate and difference of opinion on this subject were not limited to science. Surely religion has been subject to more difference of opinion than perhaps and other theoretical field being as speculative as it is. William Jennings Bryan, the more vocal of opponents to evolution, had his fear fueled by the development of eugenics, a natural outgrowth of the popularization of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Some thirty-five states eventually passed legislation compelling the sexual segregation and sterilization of unfortunates that society chose to label as misfits. Soon eugenics became identified with evolutionary theory and more fat was added to the fire. Bryan was an interesting mix of contradictions. A pacifist and anti-Republican he had resigned from Wilson's Cabinet was war fever erupted. He was a fervent admirer of hard currency yet made millions from land speculation in Florida. Bryan's anti-evolutionist views originated from his view that "the Darwinian theory represents man as reaching his present perfection [!] by the operation of the law of hate– the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak." He blamed belief in evolution for WW I and the apparent decline in religious faith. He was not – contrary to the Inherit the Wind version – opposed to an extended geologic time frame, but he resisted vehemently the notion that humans were not created supernaturally. Bryan's majoritarian stance – the majority rules and schools should teach what the majority believes – was a major reason for the entry of the ACLU into the case. The NCLU– forerunner to the ACLU– had been founded by the Quakers to help provide support and defense for their anti-war activities and pacifist members who refused to serve in Wilson's war. The president's statements against disloyalty and his support for legislation against any kind of opposition to the war created a climate that fueled majoritarian thinking. The government had already used the postal service to help suppress any kind of minority point-of-view and the ACLU – originally quite cooperative with the Wilson government – soon became disillusioned. Samuel Walker, ACLU historian, wrote "largely oblivious to civil liberties considerations before the war, the wartime crisis forced them [the ACLU] to abandon their faith in the inevitability of social progress and their majoritarian view of democracy. They now began to see that majority rule and liberty were not necessarily synonymous and thus discovered the First Amendment as a new principle for advancing human freedom." Clarence Darrow's "appropriation" of the defense was not appreciated by the ACLU which wanted to concentrate on the issue of free speech. Darrow just wanted to lampoon the Christian Fundamentalists, a pathetically easy task – it was the only time he volunteered his services. Darrow delighted in challenging the traditional concepts of religion and morality. He hated "do-gooders" and regarded Christianity as a "slave religion that encouraged acquiescence in injustice, a willingness to make do with the mediocre, and complacency in the face of the intolerable." The biblical concept of original sin was to Darrow, "a very dangerous doctrine – silly, impossible and wicked." Yet he had voted for William Jennings Bryan in 1896 As the Democratic candidate for Congress. Many traditional institutions were undergoing radical change at the turn of the century. The university, heretofore, an arm of a church sect, offered little chance for teachers to stray from the party line. The rise of pragmatism led by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, offered a path away from a paradigm of obedience to a central authority and toward "a positive stage ion which empirical investigation would be accepted as the only reliable road to truth." Empiricism soon dominated both sciences and humanities in academic research. The newly formed American Association of University Professors wanted to join in Scopes's defense. They wanted to emphasize the deleterious effects of a popularly orchestrated curriculum. "It is, we believe, a principle to be rigidly adhered to that the decision as to what is taught would be determined not by a popular vote. . . but by teachers and investigators in their respective fields." The lawyer who represented them, John Neal, had been fired by the University of Tennessee in violation of newly created AAUP procedures. (Neal was perhaps not the best choice. A brilliant lawyer and teacher, he was usually late for class, often never appearing, rarely lecturing on the topic at hand, preferring political discourses and giving his students grades of 95 without reading their exams.) Following passage of the law forbidding the teaching of evolution that contradicted the biblical teaching (this odd phraseology was to provide the opening that Darrow needed) the ACLU began looking for a test case site. Most school superintendents wanted nothing to do with the case simply declaring they did not teach Darwinism. The Knoxville superintendent even declared that, "Our teachers have a hard enough time teaching the children how to distinguish between plant and animal life." One suspects he was part vegetable himself. The civic boosters in Dayton lusted at the idea of all the publicity. They were perhaps atypical. A relatively new little town, it was a Republican enclave in a predominantly Democratic south. Even H. L. Mencken was pleasantly surprised. "I expected to find a squalid Southern village, with darkies snoozing on the houseblocks, pigs rooting under the houses, and the inhabitants full of hookworm and malaria. What I found was a country town full of charm and even beauty . . . . Nor is there any evidence in the town of that poisonous spirit which usually shows itself where Christian men gather to defend the great doctrines of their faith." It was not really a fight against evolution for the Daytonites, but rather an attempt to overcome obscurity. It eventually blew up in their faces, as Dayton became the laughingstock of the country. "Powerful social forces converged on Dayton that summer: populist majoritarianism and traditional evangelical faith versus scientific secularianism and modern concepts of individual liberty." "If the anti-evolutionists in Tennessee were aware of the existence of any other religions than their own, they might realize that it is the very genius of religion itself to evolve from primary forms to higher forms. The author of the anti-evolution bill is obviously nearer in mental development to the nomads of early biblical times than he is to the intelligence of the young man [Scopes] who is under trial." Charles Francis Potter
April 1, 2017
Even the biggest young history enthusiast out there learns something new every once and again. This book was such an occasion. And boy, was it a joyous occasion! After only seeing (and never really getting a basic understanding of) the term "Monkey Trial" on occasion while passing through a thick history textbook during high school, I took great pleasure during my collegiate studies when my professor assigned our class to read this book about this famed "The Trial of the Century." We even got to watch the 1960 film "Inherit the Wind", which is a close adaption of the events of this book, albeit with different names for the characters. I was ready and eager to learn as much as possible about what the heck this "Monkey Trial" was all about.
Larson re-discovers the passion that enabled this trial, especially it's pre-hype, to captivate so much of the nation's attention during the mid-1920s. He does an excellent job detailing the changing social climate regarding traditionalism and progressivism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Larson gives the 21st century reader a great overview of what the two big faces of this trial, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, would've meant to the people - both the locals and the national media - during that time period. The tiny Tennessee town of Dayton was transformed overnight into a media circus, with every aspect of the trial being transferred across the country (and the world) through one of the newest forms of communication, the telegraph; these aspects are beautifully covered in this book, as well. Even if you are not a fan of legal proceedings, I PROMISE YOU that you will not be disappointed with both the courtroom drama and the dramatic events that happen out-of-the-court and following the decision. It's science versus religion! Heads are bound to clash! Finally, a great overview of the evolving status of creationism and evolutionism over the past century is explored, especially in relation to school curriculum but also in religious revivals among the general populace.
Larson impressed me greatly by covering a complex topic that is often overly condensed by text books and explores all aspects of this trial, including its causes and its legacy. As I said before, it would be great (especially for the visual learner) to watch the 1960 parable film of this trial, "Inherit the Wind." This book will likely leave you in awe, both of the "gods" that dominated that summer of 1925 and of the incredible passion people have regarding scientific and religious beliefs.
Larson re-discovers the passion that enabled this trial, especially it's pre-hype, to captivate so much of the nation's attention during the mid-1920s. He does an excellent job detailing the changing social climate regarding traditionalism and progressivism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Larson gives the 21st century reader a great overview of what the two big faces of this trial, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, would've meant to the people - both the locals and the national media - during that time period. The tiny Tennessee town of Dayton was transformed overnight into a media circus, with every aspect of the trial being transferred across the country (and the world) through one of the newest forms of communication, the telegraph; these aspects are beautifully covered in this book, as well. Even if you are not a fan of legal proceedings, I PROMISE YOU that you will not be disappointed with both the courtroom drama and the dramatic events that happen out-of-the-court and following the decision. It's science versus religion! Heads are bound to clash! Finally, a great overview of the evolving status of creationism and evolutionism over the past century is explored, especially in relation to school curriculum but also in religious revivals among the general populace.
Larson impressed me greatly by covering a complex topic that is often overly condensed by text books and explores all aspects of this trial, including its causes and its legacy. As I said before, it would be great (especially for the visual learner) to watch the 1960 parable film of this trial, "Inherit the Wind." This book will likely leave you in awe, both of the "gods" that dominated that summer of 1925 and of the incredible passion people have regarding scientific and religious beliefs.
November 28, 2019
"It would be ridiculous to entrust the education of children to an oligarchy of scientists."
William Jennings Bryan (p. 105)
The actual courtroom drama in Dayton lasts for less than 50 pages. Half of the book is the lead-up to the jury trial, including the ACLU's premeditated solicitation of a case to challenge anti-evolution statues. Unlike the loose adaption in "Inherit the Wind" (1960), John Scopes was a willing participant to this planned ACLU challenge to the Butler Act of 1924. He was a math and physics teacher who was unmarried, not tied to Dayton, TN, and willing to go through the ordeal.
The aftermath of the trial was both heartening and dispiriting. The appeal of Scopes' "conviction" was neither overturned nor upheld (there was deft maneuvering by 3 of 5 judges). This was the depressing part: no judge wanted to take responsibility. Such decisions are the mainstay of our modern Supreme Court. Furthermore, a poorly researched history text of the 1920s, Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920's, led to widespread misinformation about the trial, its players, its outcome, and later popular adaptions in theatre and film.
The discussion of the aftermath is the most enriching. Most of us have a conception of the events in our mind, and unless we have read deeply, these ideas are certainly misapprehensions about Darrow smashing Bryan, which is not what occurred. This has motivated me to read the transcript itself. WGN broadcast the trial live (the first such trial to undergo such dissemination), but no recording was made.
One unmistakable difference from modern legal controversies is laid bare: we play rough today. This was a light-hearted episode by modern standards. William Jennings Bryan, for all of his bombast and primitive thinking, offered to pay John Scopes' $100 fine. Contrast to the 1950s, when authoritarian conspiracy theorists like McCarthy were locking Americans up for contrary opinions. Contrast to today, wherein any discussion of this magnitude would be all bile and venom, death threats and promises of political or actual annihilation. Here is a rare instance where I pine for an attitude of the past...
William Jennings Bryan (p. 105)
The actual courtroom drama in Dayton lasts for less than 50 pages. Half of the book is the lead-up to the jury trial, including the ACLU's premeditated solicitation of a case to challenge anti-evolution statues. Unlike the loose adaption in "Inherit the Wind" (1960), John Scopes was a willing participant to this planned ACLU challenge to the Butler Act of 1924. He was a math and physics teacher who was unmarried, not tied to Dayton, TN, and willing to go through the ordeal.
The aftermath of the trial was both heartening and dispiriting. The appeal of Scopes' "conviction" was neither overturned nor upheld (there was deft maneuvering by 3 of 5 judges). This was the depressing part: no judge wanted to take responsibility. Such decisions are the mainstay of our modern Supreme Court. Furthermore, a poorly researched history text of the 1920s, Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920's, led to widespread misinformation about the trial, its players, its outcome, and later popular adaptions in theatre and film.
The discussion of the aftermath is the most enriching. Most of us have a conception of the events in our mind, and unless we have read deeply, these ideas are certainly misapprehensions about Darrow smashing Bryan, which is not what occurred. This has motivated me to read the transcript itself. WGN broadcast the trial live (the first such trial to undergo such dissemination), but no recording was made.
One unmistakable difference from modern legal controversies is laid bare: we play rough today. This was a light-hearted episode by modern standards. William Jennings Bryan, for all of his bombast and primitive thinking, offered to pay John Scopes' $100 fine. Contrast to the 1950s, when authoritarian conspiracy theorists like McCarthy were locking Americans up for contrary opinions. Contrast to today, wherein any discussion of this magnitude would be all bile and venom, death threats and promises of political or actual annihilation. Here is a rare instance where I pine for an attitude of the past...
April 21, 2018
A interesting and often dramatic account of not only the Scopes Trail but the belief systems which ultimately contended in small town of Dayton Tennessee in 1925. In the build-up to the trail Larson describes the rise of Fundamentalist Christianity, the populist and, more importantly, majoritarian movements lead by William Jennings Bryan and finally the advent of groups like the ACLU advocating for individual rights.
Larson remains objective throughout the narrative while conveying a description of time, place and people that makes the reader feel that they are sitting in Dayton's courthouse. My one criticism is that after enjoying the cut and thrust of the Dayton events we are left with forty pages that are mostly an academic summary of how the Scopes event was treated/viewed in the following years.
One may be saddened to consider that even after ninety years we retain a strand in our culture of politics that mimics those that wanted to deny science and preach to children in public schools a biblically literal creation of humankind. The braying of Billy Sunday has been replaced with the slick but false marketing of "teach the controversy".
Larson remains objective throughout the narrative while conveying a description of time, place and people that makes the reader feel that they are sitting in Dayton's courthouse. My one criticism is that after enjoying the cut and thrust of the Dayton events we are left with forty pages that are mostly an academic summary of how the Scopes event was treated/viewed in the following years.
One may be saddened to consider that even after ninety years we retain a strand in our culture of politics that mimics those that wanted to deny science and preach to children in public schools a biblically literal creation of humankind. The braying of Billy Sunday has been replaced with the slick but false marketing of "teach the controversy".
March 21, 2023
Really well-done history. I was interested to learn about the origins of the ACLU and the individual liberty concerns of the ‘20s, which seem to recur in each generation with new issues.
Most notable is the fact that contemporary observers interpreted the trial much differently than its subsequent legacy in American thought. Larson attributes this revisionism to a book called “Only Yesterday,” which recounted the 20s as a casting off of Victorian traditions, including fundamentalism. The other is the play/movie “Inherit the Wind,” which grossly misrepresents the facts and tenor of the trial, but was wildly successful.
There is much here to explain the vehemence of opposition to evolutionary thinking among modern fundamentalist Christians, especially given that there are at least somewhat viable reconciliations between the two positions. Neither side is interested in common ground. This clash helps explain why.
Most notable is the fact that contemporary observers interpreted the trial much differently than its subsequent legacy in American thought. Larson attributes this revisionism to a book called “Only Yesterday,” which recounted the 20s as a casting off of Victorian traditions, including fundamentalism. The other is the play/movie “Inherit the Wind,” which grossly misrepresents the facts and tenor of the trial, but was wildly successful.
There is much here to explain the vehemence of opposition to evolutionary thinking among modern fundamentalist Christians, especially given that there are at least somewhat viable reconciliations between the two positions. Neither side is interested in common ground. This clash helps explain why.
April 17, 2019
An excellent historical account of the first modern media spectacle, when rapid far-reaching communication was young and conservative intolerance was at its most unknown peak, the 1920s (unless today counts). Told in a dry, academic tone, this book isn't for the casually interested looking for entertainment - that would have been the event itself. Yet Larson does a fantastic job researching the event, its causes and effects of its times, and how 80 years later this trial is still being fought in various iterations.
3.5 stars (5 stars for research, 3 for tone, 3 for the narrator was soooo boring). Probably would have been better as a book, rather than audiobook, but then I would have **squirrel!!!** gotten distracted and never finished.
3.5 stars (5 stars for research, 3 for tone, 3 for the narrator was soooo boring). Probably would have been better as a book, rather than audiobook, but then I would have **squirrel!!!** gotten distracted and never finished.
June 23, 2020
Authoritative, comprehensive, detailed and excellently researched account of the 1925 Scopes Trial. All you could ever want or need to know about the trial itself, the people involved, the politics, and the still ongoing controversy and battle between evolution and creationism. An entertaining, accessible and informative read.
May 16, 2012
Larson’s Pulitzer Prize winning work is careful, clear, and revealing.
Book thesis: A book solely about the [Scopes] trial and its place in American history; America’s continuing debate over science and religion.
This book does precisely what it sets out to do: take a look at the Scopes trial and evaluate what it has meant for American society since that time. In fact, as one reads the book, one finds that Larson accomplishes exactly what he intends to with each chapter. Is it written so clearly that the reader never has to wonder where Larson will be going in the respective chapter—the chapter thesis is almost always placed at the end of the first paragraph, and summarizes to the reader the happenings during the chapter. Of course, the remainder of the chapter is not redundant, but merely substantiates the initial claim. Although one might determine the first section (“Before…”) to be a bit dry, this section is crucial to understanding the remainder of the book and the significance of the trial even at the onset. Truly, the way Larson sets up the arguments for both sides of the case (chapters 2 and 3), create an immense amount of tension within me as I wrestled with the validity of both claims. It really does make sense for the majority to determine what is taught to their children, but it also makes sense to have the experts determine what should be taught in their field. So, even though the first section may be a bit dry, it is essential to understanding what this trial represents.
Of course, it represents different things to different peoples—to some it merely means money. Larson does an excellent job of pulling back the curtain to reveal the actual events that occurred; he is not influenced by later recapitulations of the trial (but in fact devotes a whole chapter to explain these and why they are misguided). His recounting is measured and accurate, and he does not allow subjective interpretation or framing of the events (indeed, throughout one is hard pressed to find evidence for which side they believe Larson himself agrees with!). The interpretation which he eventually does offer is merely more historical recounting—what people thought and believed about the trial after it was over. Larson is a careful historian who is truly interested in clearing up the dust surrounding one of America’s most famous and influential trials.
For those who grew up hearing the legends of the Scopes trial, this is for you.
For those of a younger generation who have never heard “Scopes” except in passing reference, this is for you too—it helps not only understand history, but understand today and our trajectory.
(Responding to what another reviewer has said regarding Intelligent Design, Larson answers in the new Afterword.)
Book thesis: A book solely about the [Scopes] trial and its place in American history; America’s continuing debate over science and religion.
This book does precisely what it sets out to do: take a look at the Scopes trial and evaluate what it has meant for American society since that time. In fact, as one reads the book, one finds that Larson accomplishes exactly what he intends to with each chapter. Is it written so clearly that the reader never has to wonder where Larson will be going in the respective chapter—the chapter thesis is almost always placed at the end of the first paragraph, and summarizes to the reader the happenings during the chapter. Of course, the remainder of the chapter is not redundant, but merely substantiates the initial claim. Although one might determine the first section (“Before…”) to be a bit dry, this section is crucial to understanding the remainder of the book and the significance of the trial even at the onset. Truly, the way Larson sets up the arguments for both sides of the case (chapters 2 and 3), create an immense amount of tension within me as I wrestled with the validity of both claims. It really does make sense for the majority to determine what is taught to their children, but it also makes sense to have the experts determine what should be taught in their field. So, even though the first section may be a bit dry, it is essential to understanding what this trial represents.
Of course, it represents different things to different peoples—to some it merely means money. Larson does an excellent job of pulling back the curtain to reveal the actual events that occurred; he is not influenced by later recapitulations of the trial (but in fact devotes a whole chapter to explain these and why they are misguided). His recounting is measured and accurate, and he does not allow subjective interpretation or framing of the events (indeed, throughout one is hard pressed to find evidence for which side they believe Larson himself agrees with!). The interpretation which he eventually does offer is merely more historical recounting—what people thought and believed about the trial after it was over. Larson is a careful historian who is truly interested in clearing up the dust surrounding one of America’s most famous and influential trials.
For those who grew up hearing the legends of the Scopes trial, this is for you.
For those of a younger generation who have never heard “Scopes” except in passing reference, this is for you too—it helps not only understand history, but understand today and our trajectory.
(Responding to what another reviewer has said regarding Intelligent Design, Larson answers in the new Afterword.)
October 14, 2018
This was a quite interesting book, especially Parts I and II: Before..., and ...During... (the Scopes trial). The book provided many corrections to my “received knowledge” of the trial, such as, that the trial was over whether evolution should be taught in public schools. No, it was about whether any subject should be taught in public schools that the majority of taxpayers paying for those schools don’t want taught. Much more interesting debate! Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for something they don’t want?
And my impressions of the two major contenders, Clarence Darrow (defense attorney) and William Jennings Bryan (prosecutor), were tempered somewhat. Bryan was a much more interesting and complex person than I’d realized, and Darrow was not quite the hero he was portrayed in my previous sources of information about this trial.
The flaws in these sources were explored in Part III (...After). The two major sources of information on the Scopes trial, for the general public, were my sources as well — Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s by Frederick Lewis Allen (which I loved), and the play/movie Inherit the Wind. The former, by necessity, cut out many details about the trial (as the trial was only one chapter in that book), and focused on the carnival atmosphere in the town of Dayton during the trial. The main characters were drawn a bit cartoonishly, and the whole episode was portrayed in good humor (as was the tone throughout his book). Inherit the Wind, was much more somber and menacing in tone, as the play portrayed the Scopes trial as an analogy to McCarthyism (ongoing when the play was written). Thus the main characters were drawn larger than life: Scopes was a “martyr” for his cause, Darrow was the hero attorney, battling the scourge of fundamentalism and the boogeyman Bryan.
Two flaws brought this book down to 4 stars, in my opinion: 1. It was difficult to keep track of all the minor people involved — and as it was a major historical event, there were major, minor, tertiary, rings of characters swirling around the trial itself. Maybe there should have been a Cast of Characters at the beginning of the book. And 2. The final portion of the book (...After) got a bit bogged down in all the events evolution- and school-related that have happened since Scopes (and as we’re approaching the 100-year anniversary of the Scopes trial, that’s quite a lot of history!)
Overall, though, this was a very informative and interesting book, and I enjoyed it. I recommend it to anyone who wants to delve more deeply into this important event in American history.
And my impressions of the two major contenders, Clarence Darrow (defense attorney) and William Jennings Bryan (prosecutor), were tempered somewhat. Bryan was a much more interesting and complex person than I’d realized, and Darrow was not quite the hero he was portrayed in my previous sources of information about this trial.
The flaws in these sources were explored in Part III (...After). The two major sources of information on the Scopes trial, for the general public, were my sources as well — Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s by Frederick Lewis Allen (which I loved), and the play/movie Inherit the Wind. The former, by necessity, cut out many details about the trial (as the trial was only one chapter in that book), and focused on the carnival atmosphere in the town of Dayton during the trial. The main characters were drawn a bit cartoonishly, and the whole episode was portrayed in good humor (as was the tone throughout his book). Inherit the Wind, was much more somber and menacing in tone, as the play portrayed the Scopes trial as an analogy to McCarthyism (ongoing when the play was written). Thus the main characters were drawn larger than life: Scopes was a “martyr” for his cause, Darrow was the hero attorney, battling the scourge of fundamentalism and the boogeyman Bryan.
Two flaws brought this book down to 4 stars, in my opinion: 1. It was difficult to keep track of all the minor people involved — and as it was a major historical event, there were major, minor, tertiary, rings of characters swirling around the trial itself. Maybe there should have been a Cast of Characters at the beginning of the book. And 2. The final portion of the book (...After) got a bit bogged down in all the events evolution- and school-related that have happened since Scopes (and as we’re approaching the 100-year anniversary of the Scopes trial, that’s quite a lot of history!)
Overall, though, this was a very informative and interesting book, and I enjoyed it. I recommend it to anyone who wants to delve more deeply into this important event in American history.
July 1, 2020
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for providing me with an e-ARC in exchange for a fair and honest review
4.5/5 stars
Summer for the Gods by Edward J Larson is a nonfiction book exploring everything leading up to, during and after the Scopes trial of the 1920s. This is often referred to as the “monkey trial” where a creationist was battled an evolutionist about the validity of the two world views. It was essentially a battle between whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, but the trail itself had a very different argument than the modern separation of church and state precedent that we are familiar with today.
The book I'm reviewing is the most recent edition of the original 1997 release. That is the 2020 edition which is the same exact book with a slightly modified afterward. While I received an e-ARC, I chose to listen to the edition on audible. I believe that is an adaptation of the 2006 edition which features its own afterword. After I listened to the book, I read the modified afterword in my 2020 e-ARC which I will discuss at the end.
I was surprised to learn that Scopes trial was not about separation of church and state as is the modern reasoning for keeping Christianity out and evolution in. I am loosely familiar with the Scopes trial period because I had a phase of extreme atheism (i.e. really into the social network), and the scopes trial was a major part of the atheist rhetoric and arguments discussed. However, most of my knowledge, while slightly vague, never really clearly defined the Scopes trial as it really was. A big part of this book is about debunking a lot of the misconceptions or the mindset the public has created around the Scopes trial.
The Scopes trial gave the “official” win to the state (supporting the law banning the teaching of evolution, but after the trial, there of re-branding where many saw it as a blow to creationists. This book discusses this thoroughly in the final part of the book. The book is split into three parts.
First is the period leading up to this trial which is an excellent review of what the societal mindset is around religion creationism in evolution. Second, the actual Scopes trial is discussed, and we learn that the trial was orchestrated by the ACLU to challenge that the law violated teachers individual liberties. The ACLU put out a request for a teacher to be used for this trial. What precedes is the trial as we know it. It comes down to trying to argue whether evolution breaks the law as defined by Tennessee.
Tennessee's law stated that evolution couldn’t be taught because it contradicts the views of the Bible. Scopes (lawyer’s) defense tries to focus on the fact that evolution is consistent with an interpretation of Genesis depending on how you look at it. In the end Scopes loses because it's clearly plain that he taught evolution and wasn't supposed to. It wasn't about whether or not evolution is in line with Christianity because the law wasn't about teaching things that go against Christianity; it was about teaching evolution.
However, the framing of the argument set up the infamous questioning of one of the states lead experts William Jennings Bryan. He was incapable of explaining away the many inconsistencies of the Bible with science (outside of just evolution). Many saw it as demeaning, and it resulted in Bryan being painted as uneducated and dumb by many in society. Granted, that view was among those who supported evolution. The opposing side saw Bryan as a martyr who stood for faith. Both of these views would fuel the more extreme actions of both the religious and the secular sides after the trial. It didn’t change the law, but it worked as a way of reshaping the battleground in a way that eventually lead to more action.
It was a long time before we started to recognize that the problem here isn't that someone's liberties were being infringed. Eventually, the emoluments clauses would be used to garner court decisions that set a precedent of a clear separation of church and state. You can’t block evolution because it is inconsistent with your religion (that is the state sanctioning or endorsing that religion over others). Nor can you teach creationism as if it is science. It's a recognition that creationism is entirely outside of the purview of the secular state.
I went into this book expecting much more of a discussion about religion versus secularism (i.e. separation of church and state). That was only a small fraction of the book. That is probably my biggest disappointment with the book. I wanted more on freedom of religion and the ability of the state to teach one religion over the other (i.e. Christianity). In the context of the trial, this book a does a great job taking a broad look overtime. Necessarily, it limits how deep we can explore each part.
We get such a clear picture of what led to the Scopes trial and then everything that came after and how it re-framed the way society looked at Christianity and evolution. There was no change in the law, but it triggered a polarization on both sides, and it set the groundwork for this conversation of freedom of religion. So overall, this was a fantastic book. It is dense with information just the way I like it. As with any great book, it paints a clear picture while leaving the reader inspired to search out more to learn.
As for the changes in the book (i.e. the afterward), it was largely unchanged. The most significant change was a discussion of statistics on the relationship between education, geography, and the belief in creationism. We see a lot of things happening in modern day that ties back to the cases of the past and the argument of the Scopes as Christians continue to push the boundary of church/state separation. We see attempts to try and hinder the ability to teach evolution without alluding to Christianity, but the subtle approaches are still very clear in their intent. However, it doesn't change that in the modern day we have conservative presidents like Donald Trump that contribute to the slow erosion of these previous presidents similar to the fears around the erosion of abortion rights as courts allow one new law after another that slowly restricts and decays the existing rights.
He makes a very persuasive and succinct argument as to why this information is still relevant to today. Speaking as someone from the South who grew up a young earth creationist, I think the mindset around evolution has changed, but religious extremism continues. If anything, the mainstream nature of evolution puts society at risk of complacency. It just highlights the need to understand and the importance of separation of church and state.
If you haven’t read this, 100% recommend (especially if you’re a history buff), but if you have a previous edition, I don’t think there is anything new here worth investing in.
4.5/5 stars
Summer for the Gods by Edward J Larson is a nonfiction book exploring everything leading up to, during and after the Scopes trial of the 1920s. This is often referred to as the “monkey trial” where a creationist was battled an evolutionist about the validity of the two world views. It was essentially a battle between whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, but the trail itself had a very different argument than the modern separation of church and state precedent that we are familiar with today.
The book I'm reviewing is the most recent edition of the original 1997 release. That is the 2020 edition which is the same exact book with a slightly modified afterward. While I received an e-ARC, I chose to listen to the edition on audible. I believe that is an adaptation of the 2006 edition which features its own afterword. After I listened to the book, I read the modified afterword in my 2020 e-ARC which I will discuss at the end.
I was surprised to learn that Scopes trial was not about separation of church and state as is the modern reasoning for keeping Christianity out and evolution in. I am loosely familiar with the Scopes trial period because I had a phase of extreme atheism (i.e. really into the social network), and the scopes trial was a major part of the atheist rhetoric and arguments discussed. However, most of my knowledge, while slightly vague, never really clearly defined the Scopes trial as it really was. A big part of this book is about debunking a lot of the misconceptions or the mindset the public has created around the Scopes trial.
The Scopes trial gave the “official” win to the state (supporting the law banning the teaching of evolution, but after the trial, there of re-branding where many saw it as a blow to creationists. This book discusses this thoroughly in the final part of the book. The book is split into three parts.
First is the period leading up to this trial which is an excellent review of what the societal mindset is around religion creationism in evolution. Second, the actual Scopes trial is discussed, and we learn that the trial was orchestrated by the ACLU to challenge that the law violated teachers individual liberties. The ACLU put out a request for a teacher to be used for this trial. What precedes is the trial as we know it. It comes down to trying to argue whether evolution breaks the law as defined by Tennessee.
Tennessee's law stated that evolution couldn’t be taught because it contradicts the views of the Bible. Scopes (lawyer’s) defense tries to focus on the fact that evolution is consistent with an interpretation of Genesis depending on how you look at it. In the end Scopes loses because it's clearly plain that he taught evolution and wasn't supposed to. It wasn't about whether or not evolution is in line with Christianity because the law wasn't about teaching things that go against Christianity; it was about teaching evolution.
However, the framing of the argument set up the infamous questioning of one of the states lead experts William Jennings Bryan. He was incapable of explaining away the many inconsistencies of the Bible with science (outside of just evolution). Many saw it as demeaning, and it resulted in Bryan being painted as uneducated and dumb by many in society. Granted, that view was among those who supported evolution. The opposing side saw Bryan as a martyr who stood for faith. Both of these views would fuel the more extreme actions of both the religious and the secular sides after the trial. It didn’t change the law, but it worked as a way of reshaping the battleground in a way that eventually lead to more action.
It was a long time before we started to recognize that the problem here isn't that someone's liberties were being infringed. Eventually, the emoluments clauses would be used to garner court decisions that set a precedent of a clear separation of church and state. You can’t block evolution because it is inconsistent with your religion (that is the state sanctioning or endorsing that religion over others). Nor can you teach creationism as if it is science. It's a recognition that creationism is entirely outside of the purview of the secular state.
I went into this book expecting much more of a discussion about religion versus secularism (i.e. separation of church and state). That was only a small fraction of the book. That is probably my biggest disappointment with the book. I wanted more on freedom of religion and the ability of the state to teach one religion over the other (i.e. Christianity). In the context of the trial, this book a does a great job taking a broad look overtime. Necessarily, it limits how deep we can explore each part.
We get such a clear picture of what led to the Scopes trial and then everything that came after and how it re-framed the way society looked at Christianity and evolution. There was no change in the law, but it triggered a polarization on both sides, and it set the groundwork for this conversation of freedom of religion. So overall, this was a fantastic book. It is dense with information just the way I like it. As with any great book, it paints a clear picture while leaving the reader inspired to search out more to learn.
As for the changes in the book (i.e. the afterward), it was largely unchanged. The most significant change was a discussion of statistics on the relationship between education, geography, and the belief in creationism. We see a lot of things happening in modern day that ties back to the cases of the past and the argument of the Scopes as Christians continue to push the boundary of church/state separation. We see attempts to try and hinder the ability to teach evolution without alluding to Christianity, but the subtle approaches are still very clear in their intent. However, it doesn't change that in the modern day we have conservative presidents like Donald Trump that contribute to the slow erosion of these previous presidents similar to the fears around the erosion of abortion rights as courts allow one new law after another that slowly restricts and decays the existing rights.
He makes a very persuasive and succinct argument as to why this information is still relevant to today. Speaking as someone from the South who grew up a young earth creationist, I think the mindset around evolution has changed, but religious extremism continues. If anything, the mainstream nature of evolution puts society at risk of complacency. It just highlights the need to understand and the importance of separation of church and state.
If you haven’t read this, 100% recommend (especially if you’re a history buff), but if you have a previous edition, I don’t think there is anything new here worth investing in.
June 16, 2010
I expected this book to give me a great picture of the Scopes Monkey Trial; my expectations were met. I didn’t expect to be treated to a detailed history of the larger debate between science and religion in general, but I am so glad that this book had a larger scope than I envisioned. The information about “the trial” was wonderful but what I really enjoyed was how Larson set this trial into historical context.
I have always been bothered by the “war” between science and religion. It seems to me that the two should be friends, as they both seek to explain things as they really are. Science and religion are both so beautiful, so meaningful and so right. Now, I understand when I say this that some scientific theories have been proven wrong, and that some religious beliefs have to be wrong because they contradict each other. But I truly believe that any truth in either of these two enterprises must fit together perfectly and complement each other, or they could not be truths.
Back to the book: I really appreciated how Larson remained fairly unbiased throughout the history, never seeming to want to slander either side of the debate, but trying to represent them both as they see themselves and as their opponents see them. He also did a good job showing the ways in which religious men and women have worked with evolutionists throughout to try to bring reason to this debate.
I really enjoyed this book. It was a slower read than I am used to (that’s what I get for reading so much juvenile fiction), but every section was interesting and thought provoking. I think what I liked most about reading this is that I was forced to consider my own opinions about so many things: science and religion first, but also education, democracy, evolution and other related issues.
I have always been bothered by the “war” between science and religion. It seems to me that the two should be friends, as they both seek to explain things as they really are. Science and religion are both so beautiful, so meaningful and so right. Now, I understand when I say this that some scientific theories have been proven wrong, and that some religious beliefs have to be wrong because they contradict each other. But I truly believe that any truth in either of these two enterprises must fit together perfectly and complement each other, or they could not be truths.
Back to the book: I really appreciated how Larson remained fairly unbiased throughout the history, never seeming to want to slander either side of the debate, but trying to represent them both as they see themselves and as their opponents see them. He also did a good job showing the ways in which religious men and women have worked with evolutionists throughout to try to bring reason to this debate.
I really enjoyed this book. It was a slower read than I am used to (that’s what I get for reading so much juvenile fiction), but every section was interesting and thought provoking. I think what I liked most about reading this is that I was forced to consider my own opinions about so many things: science and religion first, but also education, democracy, evolution and other related issues.
June 17, 2012
If you happened to have read the play Inherit the Wind, and let it create your impression of the Scopes Monkey Trial, you particularly need to read this book. This is the story of how the Scopes Monkey trial REALLY happened. There are key details that the play doesn't even try to tell you.
I'll just mention the two biggest revelations:
-The events leading to the Scopes trial were a farce. The town of Dayton, Tennessee was struggling, and the town leaders, gathering in a downtown drugstore, convinced a substitute teacher named John Scopes to deliberately challenge Tennessee's law against teaching evolution so that the resulting trial would bring Dayton some publicity, boosting its economy.
-The famous part of the trial, Darrow v. Bryan, didn't have to happen. The American Civil Liberties Union wanted to defend Scopes mainly on freedom-of-speech grounds. But once the fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan joined the prosecution, Clarence Darrow--who was militantly anti-religion--immediately wanted to face down Bryan as a stand against Christianity. He came to Dayton and insinuated himself into the defense team and its strategy, despite that some members of the defense were much more interested in promoting civil liberties than in bashing religion. Essentially, Darrow probably would never have participated in the Scopes trial if Bryan hadn't.
I'll just mention the two biggest revelations:
-The events leading to the Scopes trial were a farce. The town of Dayton, Tennessee was struggling, and the town leaders, gathering in a downtown drugstore, convinced a substitute teacher named John Scopes to deliberately challenge Tennessee's law against teaching evolution so that the resulting trial would bring Dayton some publicity, boosting its economy.
-The famous part of the trial, Darrow v. Bryan, didn't have to happen. The American Civil Liberties Union wanted to defend Scopes mainly on freedom-of-speech grounds. But once the fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan joined the prosecution, Clarence Darrow--who was militantly anti-religion--immediately wanted to face down Bryan as a stand against Christianity. He came to Dayton and insinuated himself into the defense team and its strategy, despite that some members of the defense were much more interested in promoting civil liberties than in bashing religion. Essentially, Darrow probably would never have participated in the Scopes trial if Bryan hadn't.
December 1, 2015
Always fascinated by the interplay of science and culture - throw in a good legal battle and I am hooked. This very well researched and written discussion of the Scopes "monkey" trial of 1925 and the continuing debate over what should be taught in our schools and how is very interesting reading and very relevant. I live in Kansas where as recently as 2005 creationists reigned on our state school board and "intelligent Design" was added to our state educational standards.
I think most interesting to me was Larson's tracing of the rise of Fundamentalism in the US as a response to evolution and the growth of science. The strategies of placing fundamentalists in school boards and in local politics when courts ruled against them is a strategy that has immense implications today
Besides the fascinating review of the original trial, Larson shares great insight into the movie version of the trial that was released at the height of McCarthyism in the 1950s - Inherit the Wind. The way the trial was misrepresented in the movie to meet the purposes of looking for historical parallels for communist hunting was something I was totally unaware of.
Not light reading, but well worth the effort.
I think most interesting to me was Larson's tracing of the rise of Fundamentalism in the US as a response to evolution and the growth of science. The strategies of placing fundamentalists in school boards and in local politics when courts ruled against them is a strategy that has immense implications today
Besides the fascinating review of the original trial, Larson shares great insight into the movie version of the trial that was released at the height of McCarthyism in the 1950s - Inherit the Wind. The way the trial was misrepresented in the movie to meet the purposes of looking for historical parallels for communist hunting was something I was totally unaware of.
Not light reading, but well worth the effort.
April 19, 2009
If you have been reading my blog over the past year or so, you are aware that I have had more than a passing fascination with the battles in the American courts over the teaching of Intelligent Design, aka Creationism, in high school science class. Having read multiple books on the famous 2005 case in Dover, PA I decided that I would turn some of my attention to the trial with which it is most often compared, the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, TN.
I ran across Edward J. Larson's Pulitzer prize winning account of the trial in a display my local library set up to honor Charles Darwin's 200th birthday and was absorbed by this book from start to finish. Although Larson's account of the case is exhaustively detailed, it is also beautifully written and highly worth reading.
I ran across Edward J. Larson's Pulitzer prize winning account of the trial in a display my local library set up to honor Charles Darwin's 200th birthday and was absorbed by this book from start to finish. Although Larson's account of the case is exhaustively detailed, it is also beautifully written and highly worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 214 reviews